Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important area of economic development. It is a sign of the times that whereas we would not have had to deal with such a motion five or ten years ago, there is a growing awareness of the necessity for greener technology and that it can play a role, not just from an environmental perspective but also from an economic and developmental one.

Coming from a rural constituency, I see prospects and possibilities every day for advances in energy from an environmental perspective. There is a question of research, development and cost-benefit analysis. We have discussed the forestry sector in Ireland. It is a win-win from farming, energy and carbon emissions perspectives. It is disappointing, therefore, that the national targets for forestry over recent years have not been met. There are difficulties with grant aid, land price and long-term investment returns. While it may not be relevant to our debate, from an energy and environmental perspective, forestry is an area in which we should be a world leader. We are not making best use of our natural advantage. The Minister of State's colleagues in the relevant Departments should tweak the schemes, rules and regulations to bring our forestry plantation programme back on track and reach the minimal planting standards.

Senator Boyle was involved a number of years ago in the debate on the future of the Irish sugar industry. The Minister of State was also involved. There was a belief that the Irish sugar beet industry, rather than being shut down and jobs and farmers' incomes lost, could have been redirected towards the development of bio-fuels. At the time the broad political spectrum bought into the notion of bio-fuels. A different picture of the bio-fuels industry has emerged since and there is a debate on food versus fuel. We can grow urgently required agricultural crops such as sugar beet and we should look at the bio-fuels industry given that oil prices, although falling, are of long-term concern and oil supplies, being a finite resource, will not be available forever. The food versus fuel argument must be considered but there are major advances in food such as genetic modification technology, although that is another debate. The food versus fuel argument, from a bio-fuel perspective, has not been concluded and we should try to invest significant research and development money to try to progress a bio-fuel industry in this country.

Another environmental technology which springs to mind where this country is concerned is wave power. Progress has been made and research is ongoing. From my limited knowledge, I would have to join the body of opinion that no country in the world is better placed geographically to take advantage of wave power than this country. Strong leadership must be shown from Government. Private sector involvement and money is required, but the Government must put it at the top of its alternative energy agenda.

A certain degree of progress has been made in the area of wind power. There are difficulties at local level, especially with individual farming units and small enterprises. They would be willing to invest a certain amount of money in the provision of micro turbines but the rules governing the return of excess electricity to the grid are not working as well as they should, nor is a proper, flexible financial arrangement in place. There is a legislative obligation on the ESB to take excess electricity when it is available but there is a difficulty with the pricing. We need to examine this.

I know one or two farmers who have erected their own micro turbines and generating systems and they seem to work well. These projects should be the norm and commonplace across rural Ireland, generating energy at no environmental and little economic cost for use on the farm, in the local community and in villages. I hope progress can be made in this regard.

Senator Norris concluded his remarks by referring to solar panels. Ten years ago these were seen as futuristic whereas now they are commonplace. The greener homes scheme worked well to get people to think about alternative heat and energy generation systems. It became a victim of its own success and the funding was reduced. If we look at it from a broader environmental perspective, it is a scheme which needs to remain on the departmental books to encourage the maximum number of people to use some of the technologies. The heat pumps, geothermal systems, solar panels and newer insulation systems are not rocket science, are now commonplace and are understood by a majority of householders. We must try to encourage their use through grant aid and other mechanisms.

There is a clear understanding that green technology can work to everybody's advantage from the point of view of protecting our environment and providing us with urgently needed energy resources at limited economic cost and almost no environmental cost. It is one of the few aspects of Government policy and political debate where there is a win-win solution available but it requires further drive and energy, excuse the pun, from all Departments. The mini-oil crisis of two or three months ago has made people realise we must have these systems in place. The future of our economy, our environment and our planet is dependent on progress in what are reasonable technologies, and they are not rocket science. They are technologies already in force and the more support that can be given by the Government for that form of technology, the better. It is something I support and I thank the Green Party for putting it on the agenda for discussion this afternoon.